Max-Planck-Institut für demografi sche Forschung Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Konrad-Zuse-Strasse 1 · D-18057 Rostock · GERMANY Tel +49 (0) 3 81 20 81 - 0; Fax +49 (0) 3 81 20 81 - 202; http://www.demogr.mpg.de MPIDR WORKING PAPER WP 2013-013 OCTOBER 2013 The East-West Gradient in Spatial Population Development within Germany: Temporary GDR Legacy vs. Longstanding Spatial Disparities Sebastian Klüsener ([email protected]) Emilio Zagheni This working paper has been approved for release by: Frans Willekens ([email protected]), Head of the Research Group on International Migration. © Copyright is held by the authors. Working papers of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed in working papers are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily refl ect those of the Institute. The East-West Gradient in Spatial Population Development within Ger- many: Temporary GDR Legacy vs. Longstanding Spatial Disparities Sebastian Klüsener, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Emilio Zagheni, The City University of New York Abstract Since the unification of Germany in 1990, the former communist eastern part of the country has experienced substantial levels of population decline and outmigration. These trends are largely attributable to East-West differences in economic development (Mai 2007). In this article, we explore the question of whether the recent decline in population is a temporary phenomenon related to the period of transition, or whether long-term geographical factors also affect spatial population trends in Germany. In particular, we investigate to what ex- tent East-West differences are related to the fact that parts of western Germany belong to the European dorsal (or Blue Banana arc), which has long been the most important area of economic activity in Europe (Brunet 1989). Our find- ings show that an East-West gradient in spatial population trends has existed since the late 19 th century. This suggests that long-term geographical factors are relevant for understanding trends in Germany’s spatial population devel- opment. Keywords: European Integration, German Division, Population Development, Spatial Variation, Germany 1 Past and Present Spatial Disparities in Livelihood Opportunities in Ger- many 1 Over the last 20 years, East-West differences in livelihood opportunities, and the East-West migration patterns that resulted from these differences, have been central topics in research on internal migration in Germany (Wolff 2006; Mai 2007; Schlömer 2009). Recently, East-West migration flows have become less intense (Fuchs-Schündeln and Schündeln 2009), in part because of im- proving economic conditions in the East. Demographic factors have also in- fluenced migration patterns. Currently in eastern Germany, the relatively large cohorts who were born after World War II are reaching retirement age, while the very small cohorts who were born after 1990 are entering the labor market. These smaller cohort sizes are likely to improve job market opportunities for young adults in eastern Germany 2. Does this imply that, as the legacy of the GDR fades, a new paradigm in spatial population trends will emerge in Ger- many? Some authors have argued that we might see a return to the North- South migration pattern (Kemper 2003) that was dominant in West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s (Sinz 1988; BMRBS 1990). This pattern resulted from differences in economic conditions and weak location factors. As most of the heavy industries, such as mining, iron and steel production, and shipbuilding, are concentrated in northern Germany, the North was hit harder by the crises in these sectors that started in the 1960s. Southern Germany, on the other hand, has a more mixed economic structure, with an industrial sector focused on machine-building and high-tech industries. As knowledge becomes increas- ingly important as an economic production factor, the South could also benefit from its traditional emphasis on education and its high density of universities. However, we know from research on spatial population trends in the German Empire that there were quite significant population flows from the eastern to the western parts of the country before 1945 (Kirsten et al. 1966). A longstanding factor that may have influenced these trends is the proximity of these regions to important European centers of economic activity. Brunet (1989) has pointed out that substantial parts of western Germany belong to the so-called European dorsal , an arc stretching from southeastern England across the Benelux countries and the Rhine area to the regions north and south of the 2 Alps (highlighted in Figure 1). Due to its shape, it is also referred to as the “Blue Banana.” This zone is characterized by high levels of economic devel- opment and population density. It was already discernible in 1870, and has since grown in significance (Martí-Henneberg 2005). FIG . 1–Blue Banana zone is indicated by the dotted-lined area. Source : Eurostat, Statistical Offices, own calculations. Base Map : MPIDR & CGG; partly based on © EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries. (Cartography by author) The main aim of this paper is to investigate whether the East-West gradient in spatial population development over the last 20 years can primarily be explained by the recent legacy of the GDR, or whether it is also related to the fact that parts of western Germany are located within the Blue Banana zone. A finding that the gap between East and West is in part attributable to long-term trends would be relevant for future projections of regional popula- tion development in Germany. In our analysis, we are faced with the compli- cation that Central Europe was heavily affected by war and the movement of refugees during the first half of the 20 th century, as well as by a period of tight border controls during the Cold War. We therefore take a long-term view when analyzing data for the small-scale spatial population distribution for 3 Germany over the period 1855-2008. This also allows us to cover periods with no warfare activities and low restrictions on the freedom of movement, which are particularly suitable for analyzing the relevance of longstanding spatial disparities for spatial variation in population development (e.g., 1885-1910). Recent advances in the development of small-scale historical GIS on the ad- ministrative division of Germany (MPIDR 2011) enable us to analyze for the first time fine-gridded district-level data. Theoretically, our study is based on the work of Myrdal (1957), Buttler et al. (1977) and Krugman (1991), who developed concepts and models that make it possible for us to explain why it is that, within a country or region, spatial disparities in economic development and livelihood opportunities are likely to increase rather than decrease over time, even under free market con- ditions. This phenomenon may, for example, be caused by spill-over effects in the centers of economic activity and selective migration of highly qualified people into those regions (see also Greenwood 1975). But pure economic theories would probably fall short in explaining the observed spatial pattern of population change. Migratory decisions, which are currently the main cause of spatial disparities in spatial population trends, are not just an effect of differences in job opportunities between the current place of residence and a potential migration destination. Social capital considera- tions, such as the embeddedness in social kin and non-kin networks, both at the place of residence as well as at potential migration destinations, also play an important role (see, e.g., Massey et al. 1993; Haug 2000). These factors should be taken into consideration as well, as they may help us to explain why it is that, despite persisting spatial disparities in economic development in Germany, we do not see massive internal migration flows from economically disadvantaged areas (e.g., eastern Germany) to more prosperous ones (e.g., southern Germany). Data and Methods The German population data are predominantly derived from official statisti- cal publications of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, the German Empire, and from publications of member states of these entities. We used data from a secondary source for 1855 only (Viebahn 1858). We sought to col- 4 lect data from census years in order to minimize problems due to the under- registration of migration events. Under-registration can create substantial er- rors at the district level (our main unit of analysis), especially as more time has passed since the last census. Our source of geographic data on the administrative borders of the dis- tricts is the MPIDR Population History GIS Collection (MPIDR et al. 2011). This collection provides a time series of the administrative division of Ger- many with annual cross-sections from 1815 until today. A standardized divi- sion at the district level 3 is available from 1871 onwards, while for the period 1815-1871, the geographical detail of the administrative division varies by member state of the German Union. The data for Germany are complemented with population data for large parts of Europe at the regional level, for the period 1870 until today. This al- lows us to place the population trends within Germany in a broader European context. As Germany is located at the center of the continent, it is likely to be affected by population trends in neighboring countries and regions. The re- gional administrative division of the European countries is similar to the divi- sion used by the Princeton European Fertility Project (Coale and Watkins 1986). Population data for the European states were derived in part from offi- cial sources and secondary sources, such as Populstat . The shapefiles for Europe come from the MPIDR Population History GIS collection ( MPIDR et al. 2011). These were partly based on a 2003 shapefile of the administrative boundaries of Europe from EuroGeographics (2006).